WMD IRAQ.... Seems that ISIS have found it

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
It seems that ISIS have taken over a chemical weapons site in Iraq confounding the Govt's ability to destroy the weapons.

I'm a wee bit confused. I thought that hippies and other sheep keep bleating that there were/are no WMD in Iraq. Apparently there were and still are. That said why haven't they been destroyed. TELIC was over 10 years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28222879
 
Hi, BA. I don't personally recall any "hippies and other sheep bleating" that Saddam's Iraq had never manufactured, held or used chemical weapons.

A 2007 CIA public page with considerable detail about the Al Muthanna site, including what was found in it by the Coalition post-2003, is here:

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxB.html

...Two wars, sanctions and UNSCOM oversight reduced Iraqi’s premier production facility to a stockpile of old damaged and contaminated chemical munitions(sealed in bunkers), a wasteland full of destroyed chemical munitions, razed structures, and unusable war-ravaged facilities. In 1998 Al Tariq State Establishment took over all remaining remnants at Al Muthanna.
 
Sensible answer
Its a complex and demanding job, lack of suitably skilled personnel and instability in the country may have slowed down the progress of dismantling.

Answer likely to flood the internet in the next 24 hours

The chemical weapons have been placed there by the CIA, this will enable them to carry out a false flag attack. Thus justifying the US government to Ban Guns / Invade a middle east country for oil / Support Israeli attacks on Peace loving innocent Palestinians. / Justify more stringent anti terror laws (delete as applicable)
 
Hi, BA. I don't personally recall any "hippies and other sheep bleating" that Saddam's Iraq had never manufactured, held or used chemical weapons.

A 2007 CIA public page with considerable detail about the Al Muthanna site, including what was found in it by the Coalition post-2003, is here:

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxB.html
There is a very widely held and vocal belief that no WMDs were found post 2003 invasion.

Claims that he never had them are few and far between but there are some, Although given the Domovoy school of Historical facts I am not suprised that these people are able to ignore evidence from the Iran/Iraq war.
 
Hi, BA. I don't personally recall any "hippies and other sheep bleating" that Saddam's Iraq had never manufactured, held or used chemical weapons.

A 2007 CIA public page with considerable detail about the Al Muthanna site, including what was found in it by the Coalition post-2003, is here:

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxB.html
That's not what he said. Ever since Bush decided to go in and Blair lied so he could join in, all we have heard is that Saddam had NO WMD's of any kind, or production facilities/capabilities, and that nobody had actually found anything after the US/UK invaded Iraq.

So, if there were no WMD of any kind, how come Iraq is saying it is unable to comply with it's obligation to destroy all chemical weapons? After all, your link clearly states

Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers. Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed. These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers.

  • Numerous bunkers, including eleven cruciform shaped bunkers were exploited. Some of the bunkers were empty. Some of the bunkers contained large quantitiesof unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment (presumed disabled under UNSCOM supervision), and other hazardous industrial chemicals. The bunkers were dual-use in storing both conventional and chemical munitions. Figure 12 is a typical side-view of a cruciform shaped bunker.
  • The contents of two of the cruciform bunkers bombed during Desert Storm showed severe damage. Due to the hazards associated with this location, the UN decided to seal the bunkers.
  • UNSCOM viewed the contents of the two bunkers; however an accurate inventory was not possible due to the hazards associated with that environment.
  • UNSCOM relied upon Iraqi accountability of the bunkers’ contents and assessed the amount of munitions declared to be realistic.
  • Military field testing equipment showed positive for possible CW agent in the cruciform bunkers that contained munitions and a storage bunker that contained bulk chemical storage containers. Note: this is not unusual given the munitions once stored there and the conditions in which they were stored post 1994.
so that means that they didn't have a clue what was there and were relying on the word of the "bad guys" as to what was there. Add in the full report about how Saddam was still pursuing research into CW whilst allegedly destroying them, and goes even further

ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The network of laboratories could have provided an ideal, compartmented platform from which to continue CW agent R&D or small-scale production efforts, but we have no indications this was planned. (See Annex A.)

  • ISG has no evidence that IIS Directorate of Criminology (M16) scientists were producing CW or BW agents in these laboratories. However, sources indicate that M16 was planning to produce several CW agents including sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, and Sarin.
  • Exploitations of IIS laboratories, safe houses, and disposal sites revealed no evidence of CW-related research or production, however many of these sites were either sanitized by the Regime or looted prior to OIF. Interviews with key IIS officials within and outside of M16 yielded very little information about the IIS’ activities in this area.
  • The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories were never declared to the UN.
  • The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.
So it looks like, shock horror, Bush was actually right. Blair was lying through his teeth, we all know that and that simply cannot be disputed, but underneath some dodgy CIA work and embellishment by others, the reasons for going in were actually valid (especially with the added nugget that they could never actually find any definitive proof, mainly due to the security situation as the country descended into chaos thanks to some incredibly bad thinking by those who should have known better, that disproved rumours that equipment and/or precursors and/or CW stocks and/or empty munitions and/or filled munitions were ever shipped to Syria, whilst stating that there was no "official" transfer of the weapons but there was the movement of materials to Syria, which may have included WMD, that had been denied by many for quite some time)
 
...Ever since Bush decided to go in and Blair lied so he could join in, all we have heard is that Saddam had NO WMD's of any kind, or production facilities/capabilities, and that nobody had actually found anything after the US/UK invaded Iraq....
It might be all YOU have heard, obviously I can't argue with that.

What has now happened is that ISIS have captured the thoroughly well-known and publicly documented Al Muthanna former weapons site, and Iraq has quite rightly declared that fact in accordance with its treaty obligations.

It is indeed a worrying development as was the ISIS capture of the Baiji oil refinery, recently claimed as recovered by Iraqi forces.

However, unless you and the OP have a private line to the ISIS quartermaster, nothing new has been found or declared at Muthanna which was not already known about.

I don't agree that this helps us any with "Were Bush and Blair right".
 
Last edited:
It might be all YOU have heard, obviously I can't argue with that.

What has now happened is that ISIS have captured the thoroughly well-known and publicly documented Al Muthanna former weapons site, and Iraq has quite rightly declared that fact in accordance with its treaty obligations.

It is indeed a worrying development as was the ISIS capture of the Baiji oil refinery, recently claimed as recovered by Iraqi forces.

However, unless you and the OP have a private line to the ISIS quartermaster, nothing new has been found or declared at Muthanna which was not already known about it.

I don't agree that this helps us any with "Were Bush and Blair right".
Well, as stated, Blair was certainly not "right" as we all know he lied through his teeth, whereas Bush's reasons have been clearly and publicly stated and there is a difference between what he said and what Blair said. But that's a side issue.

But it doesn't change the fact that, even on this board, there has been a lot of screaming that Saddam Hussein and his regime did not possess ANY WMD prior to the invasion in 2003, so if those doing the screaming were "right" then why has this issue suddenly appeared?.

That is what BA was saying, not that anything at the site was not "declared", not that anything at the site is usable, not that ISIS now has WMD and the capability to make them, just that if the screaming eejits were actually "right" and that there were no WMD of any kind in Iraq, why has this, possible non-event hit the news?


PS. It may have been "declared" but it still had not been "verified". A bit like PIRA "decommissioning".
 
I don't think there was ever any doubt that Saddam had WMD following the uses in the Iran Iraq war and Halabja. Additionally it was us and the American who gave him the technology to make WMD in the first place.
 
So it looks like, shock horror, Bush was actually right.
In what way was Bush right?

Prior to the invasion, he repeatedly made statements along the lines of "our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction".

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030322.html

He also said "evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program…Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

And made claims such as "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030128-23.html

His administration went even further.

Rumsfeld stated "...we know that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons. And we know he has an active program for the development of nuclear weapons."

He also said "...his regime has large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas; anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox -- and he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons."

And "He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly Smallpox."

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=000687

Cheyney stated "...there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html

The only thing ISG found were some very old weapons that were well beyond use and they concluded in their own final report that Iraq had abandoned its WMD programs long before the 2003 invasion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group#Duelfer_Report

Finally, if hard fact isn't enough to convince you, Bush himself acknowledged that the intelligence was wrong.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/dec/02/george-bush-iraq-interview
 
But it doesn't change the fact that, even on this board, there has been a lot of screaming that Saddam Hussein and his regime did not possess ANY WMD prior to the invasion in 2003, so if those doing the screaming were "right" then why has this issue suddenly appeared?
They didn't have any usable WMDs.

If somebody says "I don't have a car" and you later discover that they have a garage full of unusable, rusted car parts, do you call them a liar?

You're trying to save face on the flimsiest of technicalities.
 
Debate aside, does this mean I need to find my GSR and await timings for flights from Brize, or can I stay on my sofa in my pants?
 
However Delta Dog.

The UN resolution stated that Hussein had to comply and be seen to comply or action would be taken. By obstructing UN inspectors Hussain was in breach of the resolution, the poor American intelligence seemed to confirm what was suspected.

It can be argued therefore that America was following the rules, the whole Illegality argument really stemming from the (Blair driven) failed campaign to drum up more support in the face of a 1 more chance movement.
I would go so far as to suggest that had the Yanks simply stated (as I believe they intended) He is in breach we are bombing etc, they would have received far less flak for it.

Blair however with his cronies edited and changed the intelligence report to meet his aims.
Bush may have fucked up, but Blair lied.
 
However Delta Dog.

The UN resolution stated that Hussein had to comply and be seen to comply or action would be taken. By obstructing UN inspectors Hussain was in breach of the resolution, the poor American intelligence seemed to confirm what was suspected.

It can be argued therefore that America was following the rules, the whole Illegality argument really stemming from the (Blair driven) failed campaign to drum up more support in the face of a 1 more chance movement.
I would go so far as to suggest that had the Yanks simply stated (as I believe they intended) He is in breach we are bombing etc, they would have received far less flak for it.

Blair however with his cronies edited and changed the intelligence report to meet his aims.
Bush may have fucked up, but Blair lied.
What's any of that got to do with whether or not Iraq had WMDs in 2003?
 
What's any of that got to do with whether or not Iraq had WMDs in 2003?
As regards WMDs nothing as regards justification for action, It can be argued Bush was right, which was the point I was addressing.
I accept that may not have been clear as being a fumble fingered spack handed bugger, it took me an age to write my response and the conversation had moved on.
 
They didn't have any usable WMDs.

If somebody says "I don't have a car" and you later discover that they have a garage full of unusable, rusted car parts, do you call them a liar?

You're trying to save face on the flimsiest of technicalities.
No, I don't have to save face. The point is that there was a hell of a lot of screeching that Saddam had no WMD of ANY kind, nothing had been found after the 2003 invasion, so Blair and Bush lied (we know Blair lied through his teeth). Now we see that he, Saddam, obviously did have some nasty stuff left, which may or may not be viable, that he was still pursuing a CW programme, etc.

Now, I thought I was pretty clear regarding the Intel, etc,

but underneath some dodgy CIA work and embellishment by others, the reasons for going in were actually valid
but Saddam DID have CW left despite claiming that everything was destroyed, he WAS still pursuing a CW research programme, there were still munitions, etc. If you look at the link Hackle posted, then follow the obvious bit to the full report and read it, then you'll get the source I am using (the same as Hackle) which does bring it to the part of my first post which I have quoted.

We KNOW there were intel screwups, we KNOW there was embellishment of details, but the underlying premise was actually true.

And that is what I said.
 
...It may have been "declared" but it still had not been "verified". A bit like PIRA "decommissioning".
Not the same thing at all. The declaration made by the Iraqi Government isnt a declaration that the site exists. That has been verified long since.

The declaration now made by the Iraqi Government to the UN, under the Chemical Weapons Convention, is simply to the effect that it is unable to fulfill its obligations to destroy chemical weapons due to the deterioration of the security situation. Iraq undertakes to resume its obligations when the security situation improves and it has regained control of the facility.

I am not sure what additional verification of that declaration can be expected, unless you are volunteering to visit the site yourself. ;)

You might well ask why the cleanup hasnt been completed and what has been the rate of progress (if any). I don't know the answer to those questions, which are separate from your argument anyway. This UK MOD info from two years ago is relevant:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mod-experts-to-help-iraqis-destroy-legacy-chemical-weapons
...The Chemical Weapons Convention, which Iraq joined in 2009, requires that, although the material is unusable and does not pose a significant security risk, it must be disposed of. The nature of the material contained in the two bunkers will make the destruction process difficult and technically challenging.

The UK has therefore agreed to provide training to Iraqi personnel at Dstl’s site in Porton Down - a world-leading centre of excellence for chemical defence...
 
Absence of proof of WMDs is not the same as proof of absence of WMDs.

Saddam had, and used WMD at Halabjah.
 
Crossed wires there, i was meaning that the CONTENTS of the site had been "declared but not verified".

Oh, as far as going to the site goes, do I get to airdrop a Herc-full of Wife Beater onto the occupants first?
 
Absence of proof of WMDs is not the same as proof of absence of WMDs.

Saddam had, and used WMD at Halabjah.

We knows that, but it's him having them between the end of GW I and the start of GW II and the comments of those, including those here, who have been adamant that he didn't have ANY WMD's of ANY kind whatsoever because he destroyed them after GW I that is the point being made by BA and myself.

After all, even Blix wasn't actually sure and had told Blair so....
 

Latest Threads

Top